Disposed

A.Jagadish Gupta v. Smt.a.Anitha

Telangana HC23 Sept 2013CRP/5090/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging a warrant of arrest in an execution proceeding. The Court recorded a consensus between parties, directing the judgment debtor to deposit 50% of the balance immediately and the remaining amount with interest within two months of the first deposit to achieve full satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the balance amount immediately and the remaining balance with interest within two months of the first deposit to satisfy the decree.

A.Jagadish Gupta Vs Smt.a.Anitha — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5090 of 2012

¶3

Dt: 23.09.2013

¶4

Between:- A.Jagadish Gupta A.Anitha

¶5

… Petitioner and … Respondent

¶6

This Court made the following:-

¶7

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5090 of 2012

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

Judgment debtor in E.P.No.15 of 2010 in O.S.No.201 of 2008 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool is the petitioner herein. The respondent herein obtained money decree in O.S.No.201 of 2008 and the same was put to execution in E.P.No.15 of 2010, whereunder the respondent seeks to recover the decretal amount quantified at Rs.1,40,449/- as on the date of filing of the E.P. Along with the said execution petition, the respondent/decree holder filed an application seeking arrest of the judgment debtor on the ground that in spite of means, he is avoiding to discharge the decree debt. The Court below recorded evidence on the part of decree holder as well as judgment debtor and after considering the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner/judgment debtor has sufficient means and is showing indifference to pay the amount and accordingly warrant of arrest was ordered. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred.

¶11

When this revision came up on 15.10.2012, while issuing notice on

¶12

admission this Court granted interim stay subject to the petitioner depositing half of the amount claimed in the E.P. with a liberty to the respondent/decree holder to withdraw the same, if deposited. The amount said to have been since deposited and withdrawn as per the aforesaid order. When this revision petition is taken up and heard, learned counsel for the petitioner made alternate submission that if some reasonable time is granted, the petitioner would deposit the balance 50% amount also so that the dispute among the parties could be resolved.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that if the judgment debtor pays the balance decretal amount within two instalments, subject to such condition, the matter may be disposed of.

¶14

In view of the consensus among the parties, this revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶15

1. The petitioner/judgment debtor shall deposit 50% of the balance amount in the E.P. aforesaid within two months from today by depositing it to the credit of the E.P. On such deposit, the respondent/decree holder shall be entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

¶16

2. The petitioner/judgment debtor shall deposit the remaining balance with interest till the date of payment before the executing court within two months of deposit of first instalment. Respondent/decree holder shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount also without furnishing any security.

¶17

3. In the event of compliance of the conditions, as above, the executing court shall record the full satisfaction and pass appropriate orders in the E.P.

¶18

4. In the event of default committed by the petitioner in complying with the conditions aforesaid, executing court

¶19

shall be free to execute the decree in accordance with the provisions of Order XXI Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C.

¶20

Subject to the above conditions, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶22

September 23, 2013 LMV

¶23

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5090 of 2012

¶25

Dated: September 23, 2013

¶26

LMV

A.Jagadish Gupta v. Smt.a.Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Jagadish Gupta v. Smt.a.Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gadapa Swamy Vs Gundlapelli Srinivas

M.Jambulaiah, Vs Smt. Palamarri Lachamma

P.Talari Venkata Swamy Vs Smt.P.Rajamma

New Apsara Traders Vs M/ s. Rupa Steels Ltd. (In Liqn.)

Pioneer Habitation Projects Vs G Shankar

P.Mahankala Rao, Son of late Ramaswamy Vs The Union of India